Even better, why haven’t the Congressional Republicans held him to Constitutional standards? I intentional omitted mentioning Democrats because anyone with the intelligence to breathe knows that the Democrat Party discarded the Constitution long ago. Except when it serves thir purposes.

POTUS does not need the National Guard. He is building his own SS. Sorry, I should have said “Homeland Security.” How else would you explain the need for millions of rounds of ammunition, 1,700 new tanks, and the use of drones to spy on Americans in America?

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

That conspiracy theory has also been pretty thoroughly debunked, although I do believe the question of why so many agencies of the government have their own small but substantial police forces is a good one.

It is one of the things that drives up the cost of government, after all.

As an example: Why would the Department of Education have a police force? Well, the Department of Education administers programs that hand out billions of our tax dollars in grants and loans. And the congress apparently gave them the power to investigate fraud and abuse in those programs for which they give grants and loans.

And they also gave them enforcement power to act based on the investigations. And that means they have an enforcement division. And that division can apparently conduct police-like actions, doing searches of property for example. And because they all fear citizens, all such searches are done by armed agents, and so they need guns, and ammunition.

To explain the “debunking”, as another example, a department didn’t purchase 450 million rounds. They signed a 5-year-deal with a contractor where the contractor agreed to have the ability to deliver UP TO 450 million rounds over the 5-year-period at the agreed-upon price.

The government will exercise that contract on an as-needed basis, signing specific purchase orders for delivery from time to time. They have not purchased the entire 450 million bullets, nor are they likely to get close to that amount.

This would be like claiming the government was stockpiling F-35 fighter jets because they signed a contract for 10,000 of them, when the contract would be for “up to 10,000” planes over the 30-year life of the contract.

From constitutional scholar and retired lawyer, Publius Huldah is her sound rebuttal of this e-mail "urban legend" about the "Dick Act." Her column is titled, "Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws." The column is too long to put in a comment post, but it's well-worth reading, as are all of her papers. Here are the opening paragraphs:

"The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) cant be repealed because to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?

Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.

In addition, the 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government.

Our Framers were all for an armed American People  they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds. See, e.g., what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, writes in the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46! The reason the Citizens  the Militia  are armed is to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.

[further down in the piece]

But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.

And the assertion that Congress cant repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws shows that whoever wrote that doesnt know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a bill of attainder is, and no idea what an ex post facto law is.

20
posted on 03/05/2013 3:12:15 PM PST
by WXRGina
(The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.